[fingernailsonhull]

My feeling is that we would have some sort of hybrid PR system like Germany uses. Regional MPs are elected, but then further members are added from party lists (which can be democratically compiled or not) so the legislature very closely represents the popular vote. Two problems with this (I still support it, but every system has its flaws): 1) It makes government much bigger. Guesses are, our parliament's size would increase by anywhere from 50-100%. 2) Minority governments become the norm. However, in such systems, coalition governments (a rare thing in Canada) are quite common. You can see these as very common in Germany and, less so, in Japan. Also, in the interest of government stability, we may introduce a feature called "constructive non-confidence." In order for a government to fall to a non-confidence vote, another government must be ready (probably a coalition gov't) to immediately take its place. With such a system, we could have fixed election dates with transfer of governing power taking place (if necessary) in between them.

[fingernailsonhull]

In other news, Frank McKenna has announced that he will not run for the leadership of the Liberal Party. This party is now in serious limbo. McKenna won't run. Manley won't run. Ignatieff is too new to politics. Oh well, they'll probably put off the convention until next year and have an interim leader until then.

Also, I've heard rumours that Preston Manning may be up for McKenna's former position. Any thoughts?

[j-monster]

In other news, Frank McKenna has announced that he will not run for the leadership of the Liberal Party. This party is now in serious limbo. McKenna won't run. Manley won't run. Ignatieff is too new to politics. Oh well, they'll probably put off the convention until next year and have an interim leader until then.

Also, I've heard rumours that Preston Manning may be up for McKenna's former position. Any thoughts?

Re: your first paragraph... Brian Tobin has also formally announced he won't run for the Liberals. Geez, doesn't anybody want the job anymore? [/snark]

As for Manning, I've no doubt he would do well in that post, but I've heard some say it would smack too much of a patronage appointment, something the Liberals did too often but the Conservatives pledged to curtail. I'm not so sure if that claim is true or not, but certainly the accusation could be made. In any case, my best guess is the point is moot... I don't think Manning would accept the post if offered to him. I think he's happy enough in his current role.

[das_hips]

Bill Graham is heavily favoured to be taking the reins of the Liberal party until the Leadership convention. I suppose it's not a bad move for the time being, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim that the Liberal party is in a serious limbo. There are still plenty of potential candidates to fill the role of Liberal leader.

In regards to your response, J-Monster, over my earlier post... (and sorry for dragging this on), the Conservative party isn't an alternative to the Liberals like Coke is to Pepsi. At the risk of sounding like a disoriented Martin supporter, the two parties really do have a different set of values, and I hardly see how anybody with the clear understanding of these parties, their policies, and how they correspond to personal values and expectations could find compromise in voting Conservative over Liberal, or vice versa.

As my original comment on only '40% of the country supporting Harper' may have come across as naive, or "blatantly partisan", and I accept that, it does strike me odd that less than 50% of the people who voted for the Conservatives did so because the party, their platform, or their leader appealed to them, and while that is not necessarily flattering for the Liberals, I think it still provides an extremely fragile void in Conservative support.

I didn't intend to imply that I want to pay more in taxes. I just disagree that the GST cut is more beneficial to me than the tax platform the Liberals implemented in November. Under the new tax system that the Liberals brought in, I will get $250 more on my tax return than I will once the Conservative re-raise the lowest tax bracket, and lower the personal exemption. While $250 isn't a whole lot of money, with my current income I'd need to spend every single dollar I earned, plus an additional $6000 on goods that aren't currently taxed with GST (stereo systems and hydro bills) to see the same result. As I'm entering my final year of school in September, I was also interested in the Federal Government paying for half of it. And while the Conservatives plan of lowering the GST from 7% to 6% and then from 6% to 5% is a little bit unrealistic in todays current Government, I am still more drawn towards the Liberals equally unrealistic proposal of lowering the next tax bracket down by a percent, from 22% to 21%, and the tax bracket after that from 26% to 25%. I don't disagree with the Conservatives tax policies because I support the Liberals, rather the other way around... and a bit of the former.

The inquiry on Ralph Goodale is ridiculous. There is no evidence to support the claims, the RCMP acknowledges this, and the RCMP also acknowledges that they are only investigating because of the seriousness of the complaint. The spike in trading was merely speculation after an un-absolved inquiry on income trusts because of the looming election.

Calling Martin terrible in his term as PM is unfair. He had to work with a minority government, an inherited scandal, and an uncooperative opposition, and yet he still managed to accomplish enough in his 18 months. If Harper can accomplish more than Martin did, when he is faced with an equally uncooperative opposition then I'll be very surprised.

I suppose we'll just continue disagreeing (except of course on tax policy, I don't think you can factually prove that I am (or anybody in the $15,000 to $40,000 income range is) better off with a GST cut than an income tax cut.

[cferneyh]

Calling Martin terrible in his term as PM is unfair. He had to work with a minority government, an inherited scandal, and an uncooperative opposition, and yet he still managed to accomplish enough in his 18 months. If Harper can accomplish more than Martin did, when he is faced with an equally uncooperative opposition then I'll be very surprised.

Out of curiousity, what exactly did Martin "accomplish"?

[longseason]

About the same the same that the Republicans will accomplish with their castrated government.

[VioletlightHeron]

Das_Hips, I totally disagree with your characterization of the Goodale as "ridiculous". Goodale has some serious connections to the lobbyists and CEO's of income trust funds that benefited from the short-selling of those income trust stocks before the announcement was made. They've raised money for him and the Liberal Party. It may be that Ralph himself didnt tip off the lobbyists to the impending announcement, but someone in his office and under his supervision undoubtedly did and that needs to be investigated throughly.

[j-monster]

I suppose we'll just continue disagreeing...

Let me just say this... cfern does have a good question about what did Martin accomplish as PM. Other than promising to fix health care for a generation, but only dumping more cash into the coffers of the provinces (which is not a real fix, in my view), getting Belinda to cross the floor, and pushing through a vote to allow same-sex marriage (yes the backbenchers were allowed to vote their conscience, but the cabinet was whipped), I can't think of any other real accomplishments Martin had. And the benefits of all of those things are debatable at best. Hardly a stellar record. Also, VLH's comments re: Goodale and the income trust investigation are bang on, so I'll leave it at that.

Otherwise, to use a "Martin-ism", let me be clear, I'm not dismissing the rest of your latest comments... I'm just too tired at this point to drag this on any further than necessary. So we can agree to disagree... I'm cool with that if you are.

OK? OK!

[das_hips]

Out of curiousity, what exactly did Martin "accomplish"?

Given the circumstances, I'd say he accomplished enough. A national health care and day-care strategy, the introduction of same-sex marriage, and the Kelowna deal that has been acknowledged by Stephen Harper, but only on the basis that it has to be improved. Again, given the circumstances, that is, a minority Government that had initially presented a four year platform, and faced a large opposition, I'd say he accomplished enough in his 18 months as prime minister. How much more can you expect from a centrist party like the Liberals, when opposition comes from the left-wing NDP and the right-wing Conservatives? Comments like yours make me wonder, do you think, honestly, that the Liberal party, and Paul Martin, sit around twiddling their thumbs, pissing away Canadian tax dollars? They didn't do their best to present, and pass, legislation that matters to Canadians? That they are completely incompetent, and act solely as selfish individuals, living in a 'culture of entitlement'?

You know, initially when I posted something political in this forum I often ended up asking myself if I had been coherent, or if I had made the best choice in defending the Liberals. As I am only 21 years old, and have only had the opportunity to vote in the last two federal elections, I've come to realize that I probably have been fairly coherent, and made the right choice defending the Liberals.

Some friends and co-workers all plead: "But the Liberals stole from us... they're corrupt!"... and I understand the resentment, and the lack of trust that resulted from the sponsorship scandal, but is somebody my age going to be plagued by the sponsorship scandal when it occurred ten years ago, while only fifteen years ago the Conservative Government was plunging this country into its largest deficit ever? "But this is the new Conservative party, it's not like the old one". If you're going to pin the onus on the Liberals for a sponsorship scandal that happened ten years ago under different leadership, and with a vast majority of different MP's, than you might as well make the case that the Conservatives will drive this country right back into deficit (or raise taxes or cut social programs without an alternative), because of the time-frame. Is it wrong to assume this? Yes. But apparently it is okay to continue to nail blame to Paul Martin for the sponsorship scandal, when A) He was completely exonerated, B) He didn't, nor could he have ever gained any personal gain from these activities, and C) He is the one who initially called the inquiry (while certain Base members claim he narrowed the scope of the investigation, which is entirely incorrect, and while he received complaints from his own party for allowing the vast scope of the inquiry).

Not only do I disagree with almost every element of the Conservative platform, but realistically all I do is look at the way my tax dollars will be spent, the tax dollars I'll save, and the shape that this country will take under a specific party. Following that, all I can say is that I prefer the Liberals. Simple as that.

Everytime I post something that is remotely pro-Liberal, people turn it around and try and provide inaccuracies to my original statement. It is a tad frustrating, because as I have provided why I support the Liberals, nobody has provided why they support another party, but are quite eager to provide why they don't support the Liberals. I can't recall one post on this forum as to why a certain individual supports the Conservatives, the NDP, the Green Party, the Christian Heritage Party, the FPNP or what-have-you, except for that their position differs from the Liberals (sometimes minimally), because the Liberals are wrong.

I really don't mean to rant, or come off as a bitter asshole, because I'm really not. But I will continue to support the Liberals, as I'm sure some of you will continue to not support the Liberals, with no actual reasoning as to why you don't, except for the sponsorship scandal.

Das_Hips, I totally disagree with your characterization of the Goodale as "ridiculous". Goodale has some serious connections to the lobbyists and CEO's of income trust funds that benefited from the short-selling of those income trust stocks before the announcement was made. They've raised money for him and the Liberal Party. It may be that Ralph himself didnt tip off the lobbyists to the impending announcement, but someone in his office and under his supervision undoubtedly did and that needs to be investigated throughly.

Well, you disagree. Thats fine. But how could anybody gain from short-selling income trusts when there was absolutely no tax infraction put on income trusts, and thus no gain from short-selling, but instead the prices of these income trusts went higher. How, also, is it a the result of a conspiracy, or insider trading, when it is well known before hand that the Finance Minister of the Government of Canada hasn't concluded his inquiry on income trusts, and, alas, won't impose any new taxes on income trusts because of the looming election. I'm not sure why the spike in trading of income trusts is even media-quality news. I suppose it is possible that Ralph Goodale could have randomly decided to impose new taxes on these income trusts, but as far as I can tell, that is done after an inquiry and with initial public notice.

Otherwise, to use a "Martin-ism", let me be clear, I'm not dismissing the rest of your latest comments... I'm just too tired at this point to drag this on any further than necessary. So we can agree to disagree... I'm cool with that if you are.

OK? OK! Smile

Hey man, thats fine with me.

[cferneyh]

But how could anybody gain from short-selling income trusts when there was absolutely no tax infraction put on income trusts, and thus no gain from short-selling, but instead the prices of these income trusts went higher.

The gain wasn't to be had in short-selling income trusts. The gain would have been in knowing that there were not going to be increased taxes on income trusts, which the market would obviously react positively to, thereby driving up the prices. Knowing this in advance of the market knowing would allow those on the inside to scoop up income trust shares on the cheap and sell once the news was released.

[das_hips]

But how could anybody gain from short-selling income trusts when there was absolutely no tax infraction put on income trusts, and thus no gain from short-selling, but instead the prices of these income trusts went higher.

The gain wasn't to be had in short-selling income trusts. The gain would have been in knowing that there were not going to be increased taxes on income trusts, which the market would obviously react positively to, thereby driving up the prices. Knowing this in advance of the market knowing would allow those on the inside to scoop up income trust shares on the cheap and sell once the news was released.

I'm quite aware that there wasn't any gain to be made in short-selling income trusts. The only thing that I am arguing is that it was highly speculated that there wouldn't be any increase in the taxation of income trusts because of Ralph Goodale's initial call for an inquiry in September that wasn't expected to be completed until the end of the 2005, or early 2006. When an election is looming, and the Government announces it is going to present a mini-budget, or election plaform, then I would think it is fairly apparent that the Government isn't going to implement new taxation on income trusts when this inquiry hasn't been completed.

Either way, I haven't heard progress in this story. I suspect that it will be months before they determine if there was a leak, but I'm 100% certain that they won't find anything incriminating against Ralph Goodale.